Senate Dems warm to reconciliation

[jack sommerset]

An idea that seemed toxic only weeks ago — using a parliamentary tactic to ram health reform through the Senate — is gaining acceptance among moderate Democrats who have resisted the strategy but now say GOP opposition may force their hands.


The implications of the subtle shift among this small group of centrist senators could mean the difference between success and failure for health care reform — giving Democrats a potential road map for passing a bill that had been left for dead after the Massachusetts Senate defeat.


That mood in the Senate was matched Tuesday by a growing momentum for President Barack Obama’s health care proposal in the House, where Democrats were beginning to coalesce around the view that passing a flawed bill is better than passing none at all.


These shifts couldn’t come at a better time for Obama ahead of Thursday’s health care summit. The White House has signaled he’s prepared to use reconciliation, which would require just 51 votes to pass health reform.


The comments also seemed to reflect the early soundings of a Democratic strategy for selling the public on the tactic, especially if no Republicans sign on to Obama’s plan after the summit: The GOP made us do it.


“Obviously, if the minority is just frustrating the process, that argues for taking steps to get the public’s business done,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who was one of the leading voices against the procedure after the Massachusetts election, calling it “very ill-advised.”


“At the same time ... Republicans would probably shut the place down, but you could argue they are doing that anyway,” Bayh said.


Bayh’s remarks Tuesday came a day after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) cited Republican obstructionism as a reason why she could embrace the parliamentary maneuver to pass health care reform. Last month, she said she was leaning against reconciliation.


“I’m staying open to see how these negotiations go forward,” Landrieu said. “I’ve not generally been a big supporter, but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process.”


Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he doesn’t prefer reconciliation, but it may be the only way.


“I’d like to see as many votes as possible,” he said. “But at the end of the day, with the obstructionism going on at the level that it is, I’m more interested in what’s in the package than I am in the process of how many votes it takes to get it through.”


To be sure, the hints on reconciliation do not signal any kind of ironclad commitment. Democrats remain hesitant about using the procedure, fearful that Republicans will be successful in convincing voters that it is an end-run around the normal legislative process.


It also remains unclear whether Democrats can even pull it off, given the strict rules governing bills passed through reconciliation, which requires the entire legislation — down to a single line — to have an direct impact on the federal budget. Simple policy changes, such as the president’s new proposal to establish a federal review board on insurance rates, are unlikely to survive.


Although he has remained open to the idea, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota fired another warning shot Tuesday about the limits of reconciliation, saying a narrow bill might pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, but not a measure nearly as broad as the proposal put forth by Obama.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33398.html#ixzz0gPsovMja

[boutons_deux]

smash-mouth the Repugs back like they smash-mouthed under dubya.

IBIWISI

[jack sommerset]

smash-mouth the Repugs back like they smash-mouthed under dubya.

IBIWISI

All about crazy made up revenge with this one. Nice take. Surprising.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

LOL, their logic is that because the Republicans wouldn't sign on to a shitty bill that is going to do nothing to bring down costs and degrade the quality of service everyone gets, they're going with the nuclear option?

They deserve to get their asses handed to them in November. :td

[DMX7]

This is a smart move by Dems. Repugs aren't going to sign anything because it would interfere with their obstructionist strategy.

[ChumpDumper]

Was it a nuclear option when the Republican majority used it to enact tax cuts?

I don't necessarily agree with its use, but "nuclear"?

[jack sommerset]

This is a smart move by Dems. Repugs aren't going to sign anything because it would interfere with their obstructionist strategy.

Yeah, genius move!

[jack sommerset]

I'm pretty sure they will go with the reconciliation. I'm wondering if they can get the house to vote their way when they do. 60-70 percent of the peeps don't want this crap but they keep going forward. Way to bring the folks together.

[jack sommerset]

Double post.....

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro blew it. He should have put in a strong public option, then reconciliation. And the Dems would clobber the Repugs in November

[PublicOption]

reconciliation on the public option and let congress sort the details................fuck 'em.

[boutons_deux]

Figures, WC likes his side to play tough, but when there's push back, he whines about "crazy made up revenge". What a jerkoff.

[baseline bum]

Magic Negro blew it. He should have put in a strong public option, then reconciliation. And the Dems would clobber the Repugs in November

Pretty much. Reconciliation to pass the piece of shit they almost had at Christmas will be disastrous though.

[ElNono]

If they're going this route might aswell have the public option and everything else in there...

[SnakeBoy]

If they're going this route might aswell have the public option and everything else in there...

No it's better that they use reconciliation to pass something that nobody likes. I support this move by the Dems.

[DMX7]

Magic Negro blew it. He should have put in a strong public option, then reconciliation. And the Dems would clobber the Repugs in November

He wanted to give them (republicans) a chance at bipartisanship, but he should have known they wanted no such thing.

[Winehole23]

Magic Negro blew it. He should have put in a strong public option, then reconciliation. And the Dems would clobber the Repugs in NovemberHe won't, even with a lower bar, and they won't.

[Winehole23]

If they're going this route might as well have the public option and everything else in there...Already ruled out...

...reading the tea leaves, right? The bill is already shitty enough. No need to press their luck...

...pissing backwards on all the dumbfucks who thought they voted for social democracy, not crony capitalism and a continuation of Bush's foreign policy and homeland security regime...

They will piss backwards on the voters...it's a time honored tradition in both parties.

Instead of real reform, we'll just get a shitty insurance mandate.

[Darrin]

Good. The country needs it and I would rather have it through a procedural gray-area in the Senate than have it filibustered or another expansion of Executive power. I was proud that Debbie Stabenow signed it. We need this, especially with a Health-Care mandate. Heath insurance is not like choosing an insurer for your car.

[101A]

Why try it now -- for the first time in history -- to eliminate extended debate? Well, because they control every lever of the Federal Government. That is the very reason why we have the filibuster rule. So when one party, when one interest controls all levers of Government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist, if need be, the passions of the moment. ... At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put unlimited debate in. When you have to -- and I have never conducted a filibuster -- but if I did, the purpose would be that you have to deal with me as one Senator. It does not mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option (http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/000987.html) extinguishes the power of Independents and moderates in this Senate. That is it. They are done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes.
... I do not want to hear about "fair play" from my friends. Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules.
... It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. (http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/002457.html) I say to my friends on the (other) side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when (our party) takes back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

Guess who said it.

[boutons_deux]

"Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules."

There's no need to change the rules. The dubya/dickhead Repugs used reconciliation several times, no change in rules was needed.

[101A]

"Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules."

There's no need to change the rules. The dubya/dickhead Repugs used reconciliation several times, no change in rules was needed.


Fine, care to take a stab as to who made the statement?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Fine, care to take a stab as to who made the statement?

Pelosi?

[101A]

Pelosi?


At least someone guessed.

There's actually more good quotes than that:

Watch for yourself. (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/)

[George Gervin's Afro]

At least someone guessed.

There's actually more good quotes than that:

Watch for yourself. (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/)

That does sound like Biden...! Dang it

[TeyshaBlue]

Was it a nuclear option when the Republican majority used it to enact tax cuts?

I don't necessarily agree with its use, but "nuclear"?

Nucular.:lol

[jack sommerset]

That does sound like Biden...! Dang it

Sounds like something you would say, stupid.

[boutons_deux]

I don't care if the quote is from a Dem.

Each party uses the tools and powers it fought so hard to gain.

Repugs love spending and big deficits when they are spending, but it's a crisis when Dems are doing. one big fucking YAWN!

Reconciliation was also ruled out by Reid, so there's no reason public option has to stay ruled out.

The sooner Reid gets defeated in AZ, the better. Emblematic of the dickless, spineless, no-leadership Dems

[jack sommerset]

I don't care if the quote is from a Dem.

Each party uses the tools and powers it fought so hard to gain.

Repugs love spending and big deficits when they are spending, but it's a crisis when Dems are doing. one big fucking YAWN!

Reconciliation was also ruled out by Reid, so there's no reason public option has to stay ruled out.

The sooner Reid gets defeated in AZ, the better. Emblematic of the dickless, spineless, no-leadership Dems

Of course you don't care. You just want to rant about anyone who is not a democrat, far left one at that....That makes you a bigot!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course you don't care. You just want to rant about anyone who is not a republican, far right one at that....That makes you a bigot!

[jack sommerset]

I'm a fucking idiot and I make up things to make myself feel better

[Bartleby]

the sooner reid gets defeated in az, the better

az? Don't you mean Nevada?

[George Gervin's Afro]

McConnell supported passage of 2003 tax cuts through reconciliation. While Wallace noted that reconciliation "has been used by other presidents, including George W. Bush," in 2003, McConnell himself voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. He subsequently voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, "would increase budget deficits ... by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period."

McConnell supported passage of 2005 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2005, McConnell voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. He subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself. CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress and signed by the president, would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

McConnell supported use of reconciliation to pass measure that would have allowed oil drilling in ANWR. McConnell was one of 51 senators who voted against striking language allowing the reconciliation process to be used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the 2006 budget resolution and voted for a reconciliation bill that, as originally introduced in and passed by the Senate, included a provision to open up the refuge to drilling. (The bill as enacted did not contain such a provision.)

[coyotes_geek]

good to see that everyone likes reconciliation when it's their team who gets to do it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

good to see that everyone likes reconciliation when it's their team who gets to do it.

either you support it or you don't.

[101A]

I don't care if the quote is from a Dem.

Each party uses the tools and powers it fought so hard to gain.

Repugs love spending and big deficits when they are spending, but it's a crisis when Dems are doing. one big fucking YAWN!

Reconciliation was also ruled out by Reid, so there's no reason public option has to stay ruled out.

The sooner Reid gets defeated in AZ, the better. Emblematic of the dickless, spineless, no-leadership Dems

There's a lot more than one Dem that talked about; watch the video.

[Wild Cobra]

"Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules."

There's no need to change the rules. The dubya/dickhead Repugs used reconciliation several times, no change in rules was needed.
Yes, but the public in large was not against them doing so. If the democrats cram this down our throats, their losses will be catastrophic in November.

Reconciliation was used for the Bush Tax cuts. How many voters though they were getting tax cuts rammed down their throats?

[ChumpDumper]

They shouldn't have used it back then.

Too late to whine about it now.

[Wild Cobra]

They shouldn't have used it back then.

Too late to whine about it now.
That's your opinion.

There was no public outcry when it was done for tax cuts. If the democrats do it for health care, they might be effectively committing suicide to their careers.

[ChumpDumper]

That's your opinion.

There was no public outcry when it was done for tax cuts. If the democrats do it for health care, they might be effectively committing suicide to their careers.Big whoop.

The Republicans were warned using reconciliation could lead to exactly this. don't think they won't use it again in the future once they are back in power.

[Wild Cobra]

Big whoop.

The Republicans were warned using reconciliation could lead to exactly this. don't think they won't use it again in the future once they are back in power.
Let the chips fall as they may.

The republican used it to pass legislation that the public at large agree with.

The democrats are threatening to use it for legislation that the public at large does not want.

Who do you think will stand up to the public vote?

If the republicans use it in the future, think they will do so against the will of the people like the democrats are threatening? If they do, they deserve to be tossed out as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Let the chips fall as they may.

The republican used it to pass legislation that the public at large agree with.According to what? They lost the Congress after they used reconciliation several times. Looks like they worked against the public will,


The democrats are threatening to use it for legislation that the public at large does not want.According to what? Depending on how polls are worded, the actual will of the people isn't so easily defined.


Who do you think will stand up to the public vote?What does that mean?


If the republicans use it in the future, think they will do so against the will of the people like the democrats are threatening? If they do, they deserve to be tossed out as well.They already did and already were.

[ChumpDumper]

Guess who said it.Guess what he was talking about.

Do you even know what the nuclear option was back then?

It certainly isn't what the Republicans are calling the nuclear option now.

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, you no longer deserve a response. To make such a statement without evidence. The republicans weren't voted out because of reconciliation, but because they broke the Contract with America.

You are in the Twilight Zone.

[Bartleby]

Chump, you no longer deserve a response. To make such a statement without evidence. The republicans weren't voted out because of reconciliation, but because they broke the Contract with America.

And your evidence for that is . . . ?

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, you no longer deserve a response. To make such a statement without evidence. The republicans weren't voted out because of reconciliation, but because they broke the Contract with America.

You are in the Twilight Zone.You made that statement without evidence.

Hypocrite.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And your evidence for that is . . . ?

He heard it on Fox news.. Gingrich, Rove and Hannity said it.